Creative Commons License

THE MANY FACES OF BILL O'REILLY

I was asked by one of my readers – and I do not know whether they are male or female – what I thought of the Bill O’Reilly/Liz Wiehl mutual settlement over allegations of sexual harassment …

While it would be easy to pile-on the condemn Bill O’Reilly bandwagon; I must – in all honesty – acknowledge that there are women out there who deliberately exploit the vulnerability of wealthy and/or prominent individuals. Thus I am not sure of any of the facts but offer this analysis.

According to published reports, the allegations allegedly leveled against O'Reilly were said to be both shocking and serious, and possibly part of a pattern and practice of sexual aggression. Aggression known to O’Reilly’s employer who was also dealing with similar allegations against other executives. According to O'Reilly, he settled three matters in 20 years at Fox which he claimed he settled to protect his children. Children whose primary custody was awarded to O'Reilly's wife after four years of a nasty battle.

While the terms of the settlement remain confidential, it was reported to involve $32 million to be paid over a period of four years with the expectation that both parties would be incentivized to allow the matter to die of its own accord.

However, with all of the rumors and reporting about Bill O’Reilly’s $32 million settlement with Liz Wiehl, there is little or no doubt in my mind that something happened; and that the issues involved were far from trivial or easily explained away. Nobody, with the exception of a Michael Jackson who is alleged to have diddled little boys, would pay out $32 million to stem false and misleading allegations. O'Reilly has claimed he cannot make any statement without returning for years of litigation.

However, O’Reilly also has a valid point that many settlements are made by companies (or their insurers) to stem the tide of continuing reputational damage. In O’Reilly’s case, he may have been protecting his 100 million dollar contract with Fox that was about to be renewed. A powerful incentive to avoid a prolonged and messy fight in the court of public opinion. A fight which he ultimately lost due to the interference of hyper-partisan progressive socialist democrats.

Lis Wiehl alleged that O’Reilly sent her gay pornography and other sexually explicit material as part of his repeated harassment, the Times said.

[OCS: This is apparently addressed in Lis Wiehl’s sworn declaration suggesting that such information may have been sent in the context of an attorney-client relationship.]

She also alleged she was forced into a sexual relationship with O’Reilly.

[OCS: But nowhere in her sworn declaration does Wiehl state that she was not harassed or had a sexual relationship with Bill O’Reilly. However, she claims, under penalty of perjury, that she would no longer make the allegations made in the draft complaint. She remains silent on their truthfulness with a cleverly-crafted statement.]

Statement by Mark Fabiani on Behalf of Bill O'Reilly Relating to the New York Times Smear Piece

October 21, 2017

[OCS: I find it extremely interesting that Bill O’Reilly is represented by Mark Fabiani, former President and Chief Hound-dog Bill Clinton’s old crisis manager and fixer – with an astounding ability to mitigate career and media damage in matters involving sexual harassment and escapades.]

Once again, The New York Times has maliciously smeared Bill O'Reilly, this time even failing to print a sworn affidavit from his former lawyer, Lis Wiehl, repudiating all allegations against Bill O'Reilly.

The Times ignored that evidence, sworn under oath, and chose to rely on unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous sources and incomplete leaked or stolen documents.

[OCS: It is not the role of The Times to examine evidence and issue an opinion on its veracity. There is no publicly disclosed court case at this time and without seeing the actual conditions that produced the sworn statement, the statement should be considered incomplete. Especially if money changed hands in such a manner as to condition the crafting of the sworn statement.]

Here are the facts: after the Chairman of Fox News Roger Ailes was fired in July 2016, dozens of women accused scores of male employees of Fox News of harassment - including the current co-president of Fox News Jack Abernathy.

21st Century Fox settled almost all these cases, paying out close to $100 million dollars.

[OCS: Notice the deflection and dilution – where individual allegations and cases are lumped together and treated as just another business matter.]

Six months after Mr. Ailes left the company, Fox News Corporation signed Bill O'Reilly to a record breaking new contract after the company had analyzed and considered all allegations against him.

In its first article about Mr. O'Reilly on April 1st, The New York Times printed inaccurate settlement figures while fully understanding that O'Reilly and his counsel are legally bound by confidentiality and cannot set the record straight.

[OCS: It is a common dodge to hide behind lawyers. Either you cannot discuss the matter because of pending litigation, litigation, or possible litigation. Then there is the ubiquitous “Non Disclosure Agreement” which binds all parties to silence or provides official talking points which may be discussed openly. And, then there is the strongest method of ensuring silence: filing documents under Court Seal and where any disclosure can find you in contempt of court, along with penalties and possible imprisonment.]

In its latest diatribe against Bill O'Reilly, the Times printed leaked information provided by anonymous sources that is out of context, false, defamatory, and obviously designed to embarrass Bill O'Reilly and to keep him from competing in the marketplace.

[OCS: Someone with some degree of knowledge “leaked” actual or misleading details. Both parties can mutually amend their disclosure or issue another joint statement setting the “record” straight. However, because the terms of most NDA’s are compromises and do not flatter either party, it is often in nobody’s interest to correct the record and remove either party’s ability to claim that the information that was disclosed is false, misleading, stolen, or whatever.]

Finally, in the more than 20 years Bill O'Reilly worked at Fox News, not one complaint was filed against him with the Human Resources Department or Legal Department by a coworker, even on the anonymous hotline.

[OCS: This could literally be true. Because most real problems are settled before any formal complaint is filed or the grievant receives a confidential settlement, or is encouraged to “take one for the team” and preserve their and the company’s respective reputations. Knowing how powerful your company may be, how much money is in their deep pockets, and how many private investigators and lawyers may be retained to sift through the minutiae of your life is enough to chill most complaints.]

The New York Times has copies of two letters written by 21st Century Fox lawyers attesting to that fact.

I especially appreciate the craftsmanship in the drafting of this agreement as it provides Bill O’Reilly with plausible deniability for sending obscene materials to Lis Wiehl, suggesting that such explicit content may have been submitted for legal reasons to Wiehl who was acting as his attorney. Of course, one may wonder why these communications were not automatically covered by the attorney-client privilege and thus could not be used in any draft allegations?

The many faces of Bill O’Reilly …

After watching Bill O’Reilly for years and enjoying his show (up until two years ago when I stopped regularly watching Fox News), I still wonder who O’Reilly, the man, might be.

Is he the accomplished creator/writer/producer/host of the most-watched commentary program on cable television?

Is he a humble man, raised in modest circumstances, looking out “for the folks?”

Is the pugnacious persona hiding another wealthy, and elite New Yorker who hobnobs with the powerful and privileged?

Is he a hard-working author of books and a newsletter?

Is he the patron saint of charities which benefit from the sales of his tchotchkes which he endlessly flogs on the air?

Is he a businessman whose business happens to be media-driven?

Is he the uber-loyal protector of his employer and friends?

Is he the aggressor in a hard-fought custody battle with his divorced wife – and lost the primary residential custody of his children?

Is he the heartless bastard who reportedly tried to get his wife sanctioned by the Catholic Church due to her taking communion while divorced?

Is he all of these things or is he just another guy, caught up in the circumstances of his life and believing his own invincible bullshit?

I still do not know, will never know, and believe that the matter should be laid to rest. However, we should remember that Lis Wiehl is an attorney and subject to disbarment if there are material misrepresentations that were signed under penalty of perjury.

-- steve

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

Comments

I was asked by one of my readers – and I do not know whether they are male or female – what I thought of the Bill O’Reilly/Liz Wiehl mutual settlement over allegations of sexual harassment …

While it would be easy to pile-on the condemn Bill O’Reilly bandwagon; I must – in all honesty – acknowledge that there are women out there who deliberately exploit the vulnerability of wealthy and/or prominent individuals. Thus I am not sure of any of the facts but offer this analysis.

According to published reports, the allegations allegedly leveled against O'Reilly were said to be both shocking and serious, and possibly part of a pattern and practice of sexual aggression. Aggression known to O’Reilly’s employer who was also dealing with similar allegations against other executives. According to O'Reilly, he settled three matters in 20 years at Fox which he claimed he settled to protect his children. Children whose primary custody was awarded to O'Reilly's wife after four years of a nasty battle.

While the terms of the settlement remain confidential, it was reported to involve $32 million to be paid over a period of four years with the expectation that both parties would be incentivized to allow the matter to die of its own accord.

However, with all of the rumors and reporting about Bill O’Reilly’s $32 million settlement with Liz Wiehl, there is little or no doubt in my mind that something happened; and that the issues involved were far from trivial or easily explained away. Nobody, with the exception of a Michael Jackson who is alleged to have diddled little boys, would pay out $32 million to stem false and misleading allegations. O'Reilly has claimed he cannot make any statement without returning for years of litigation.

However, O’Reilly also has a valid point that many settlements are made by companies (or their insurers) to stem the tide of continuing reputational damage. In O’Reilly’s case, he may have been protecting his 100 million dollar contract with Fox that was about to be renewed. A powerful incentive to avoid a prolonged and messy fight in the court of public opinion. A fight which he ultimately lost due to the interference of hyper-partisan progressive socialist democrats.

Lis Wiehl alleged that O’Reilly sent her gay pornography and other sexually explicit material as part of his repeated harassment, the Times said.

[OCS: This is apparently addressed in Lis Wiehl’s sworn declaration suggesting that such information may have been sent in the context of an attorney-client relationship.]

She also alleged she was forced into a sexual relationship with O’Reilly.

[OCS: But nowhere in her sworn declaration does Wiehl state that she was not harassed or had a sexual relationship with Bill O’Reilly. However, she claims, under penalty of perjury, that she would no longer make the allegations made in the draft complaint. She remains silent on their truthfulness with a cleverly-crafted statement.]

Statement by Mark Fabiani on Behalf of Bill O'Reilly Relating to the New York Times Smear Piece

October 21, 2017

[OCS: I find it extremely interesting that Bill O’Reilly is represented by Mark Fabiani, former President and Chief Hound-dog Bill Clinton’s old crisis manager and fixer – with an astounding ability to mitigate career and media damage in matters involving sexual harassment and escapades.]

Once again, The New York Times has maliciously smeared Bill O'Reilly, this time even failing to print a sworn affidavit from his former lawyer, Lis Wiehl, repudiating all allegations against Bill O'Reilly.

The Times ignored that evidence, sworn under oath, and chose to rely on unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous sources and incomplete leaked or stolen documents.

[OCS: It is not the role of The Times to examine evidence and issue an opinion on its veracity. There is no publicly disclosed court case at this time and without seeing the actual conditions that produced the sworn statement, the statement should be considered incomplete. Especially if money changed hands in such a manner as to condition the crafting of the sworn statement.]

Here are the facts: after the Chairman of Fox News Roger Ailes was fired in July 2016, dozens of women accused scores of male employees of Fox News of harassment - including the current co-president of Fox News Jack Abernathy.

21st Century Fox settled almost all these cases, paying out close to $100 million dollars.

[OCS: Notice the deflection and dilution – where individual allegations and cases are lumped together and treated as just another business matter.]

Six months after Mr. Ailes left the company, Fox News Corporation signed Bill O'Reilly to a record breaking new contract after the company had analyzed and considered all allegations against him.

In its first article about Mr. O'Reilly on April 1st, The New York Times printed inaccurate settlement figures while fully understanding that O'Reilly and his counsel are legally bound by confidentiality and cannot set the record straight.

[OCS: It is a common dodge to hide behind lawyers. Either you cannot discuss the matter because of pending litigation, litigation, or possible litigation. Then there is the ubiquitous “Non Disclosure Agreement” which binds all parties to silence or provides official talking points which may be discussed openly. And, then there is the strongest method of ensuring silence: filing documents under Court Seal and where any disclosure can find you in contempt of court, along with penalties and possible imprisonment.]

In its latest diatribe against Bill O'Reilly, the Times printed leaked information provided by anonymous sources that is out of context, false, defamatory, and obviously designed to embarrass Bill O'Reilly and to keep him from competing in the marketplace.

[OCS: Someone with some degree of knowledge “leaked” actual or misleading details. Both parties can mutually amend their disclosure or issue another joint statement setting the “record” straight. However, because the terms of most NDA’s are compromises and do not flatter either party, it is often in nobody’s interest to correct the record and remove either party’s ability to claim that the information that was disclosed is false, misleading, stolen, or whatever.]

Finally, in the more than 20 years Bill O'Reilly worked at Fox News, not one complaint was filed against him with the Human Resources Department or Legal Department by a coworker, even on the anonymous hotline.

[OCS: This could literally be true. Because most real problems are settled before any formal complaint is filed or the grievant receives a confidential settlement, or is encouraged to “take one for the team” and preserve their and the company’s respective reputations. Knowing how powerful your company may be, how much money is in their deep pockets, and how many private investigators and lawyers may be retained to sift through the minutiae of your life is enough to chill most complaints.]

The New York Times has copies of two letters written by 21st Century Fox lawyers attesting to that fact.

I especially appreciate the craftsmanship in the drafting of this agreement as it provides Bill O’Reilly with plausible deniability for sending obscene materials to Lis Wiehl, suggesting that such explicit content may have been submitted for legal reasons to Wiehl who was acting as his attorney. Of course, one may wonder why these communications were not automatically covered by the attorney-client privilege and thus could not be used in any draft allegations?

The many faces of Bill O’Reilly …

After watching Bill O’Reilly for years and enjoying his show (up until two years ago when I stopped regularly watching Fox News), I still wonder who O’Reilly, the man, might be.

Is he the accomplished creator/writer/producer/host of the most-watched commentary program on cable television?

Is he a humble man, raised in modest circumstances, looking out “for the folks?”

Is the pugnacious persona hiding another wealthy, and elite New Yorker who hobnobs with the powerful and privileged?

Is he a hard-working author of books and a newsletter?

Is he the patron saint of charities which benefit from the sales of his tchotchkes which he endlessly flogs on the air?

Is he a businessman whose business happens to be media-driven?

Is he the uber-loyal protector of his employer and friends?

Is he the aggressor in a hard-fought custody battle with his divorced wife – and lost the primary residential custody of his children?

Is he the heartless bastard who reportedly tried to get his wife sanctioned by the Catholic Church due to her taking communion while divorced?

Is he all of these things or is he just another guy, caught up in the circumstances of his life and believing his own invincible bullshit?

I still do not know, will never know, and believe that the matter should be laid to rest. However, we should remember that Lis Wiehl is an attorney and subject to disbarment if there are material misrepresentations that were signed under penalty of perjury.